Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

General respect level: physics or math?

  1. Dec 26, 2006 #1
    Just wondering, what is the general consensus on whether physics or math is a more respectable and "harder" intellectual field. I'm a mathematician, and I know both can be very hard, but just wanted to know on a simple level. I'm asking this in the same light as how people usually rank the sciences in terms of their difficulty/pureness/respect level (eg. bio< chem < ...)
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 26, 2006 #2

    radou

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    There is a joke which says: 'Chemists think they're physicians; physicians think they're mathematicians; mathematicians think they're gods.'

    Joke aside, I don't think one can draw conclusions about that in general. Of course, for example, knowing a lot math makes it easier for one to learn some physics, but that means nothing.
     
  4. Dec 26, 2006 #3

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    A physician is a doctor, as in medical doctor. I think you might have meant physicist.
     
  5. Dec 26, 2006 #4

    radou

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Yes, I meant physicist, thanks.
     
  6. Dec 26, 2006 #5
    Well considering the focus of western medicine to fix everything will a pill.. :wink:
     
  7. Dec 26, 2006 #6
    From my undergradate experiences, I'd consider the levels of difficulty from most to least: experimental physics<pure maths<theoretical physics<applied maths

    I put experimental physics at the top due to my lack of experience with experimental science and low level of kowledge of general physics (i.e. how things work) and the huge amount of vaguenss that occurs in undergrad lab classes which really puts me off.

    From observing other students I have noticed that good at maths => good at physics but not always the other way around. I feel that physics always takes small sections of maths and combine many applications with it. So in this way physics is a branch of maths and so maths is more general. General things are considered harder than special things, in general. As Dyson said, Mathematicans are like birds flying across the field whereas physicists are like frogs leaping around in the same field but being able to see it more closely but obviously not as far.

    From observation from academics in both departments I conclude that mathematicians are 'smarter' than physicists. Although the word smart is subjective. Maybe its the fact that mathematics is precise which makes the arguments made by mathematicans to be more solid or less hand waving. And nothing beats elegant maths proofs because not only is it 100% correct, its also delivered in an efficient manner. Just reading these things can make one smarter.

    The more maths a physicist uses, the smarter they seem. i.e Witten. And people like Witten are considered the best physicists. A mathematician knowing more physics dosen't neccessiarly make them better mathematicians but a physicst who knows more maths will definitely make them better physicists so in this way (and the other reasons given), maths is more respectable.

    Although having said all this here is a thread that might give some different views.

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=80027
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2006
  8. Dec 26, 2006 #7

    CRGreathouse

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I think that by asking this in a math forum you're going to get a lot of responses biased in that direction.

    For my part, I tend to agree with pivoxa15 -- and have had the same experience with math professors vs. other professors in terms of general intelligence. Of course its all very subjective.
     
  9. Dec 26, 2006 #8

    Alkatran

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The question you're actually asking here is "Is math/physics preference correlated with IQ?" If they aren't correlated, then we expect people of the same intelligence to go in both fields and cover all the 'low hanging fruit' at their level.

    There should be some sort of study done.


    ... Yes, I know IQ is a bad measure of intelligence.
     
  10. Dec 28, 2006 #9
    You could also look at this problem from the perspective of which field of study can be learnt by self study most easily.

    At first one thinks that maths can more easily learnt than (theoretical) physics because it is purely a priori. But from experience it is not the case because a priori doesn't mean it is easier to learn. It takes a lot of training and effort to see these a priori truths. With physics, one has an intuitive feel more so than maths and plus the hardest things in physics are usually the maths. In this way, maths is harder to self learn than physics.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2006
  11. Dec 28, 2006 #10

    radou

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Btw, in my opinion, IQ (measured as it is) is a factor related only to the speed and time of study, mostly, under assumption that the person is average (or slightly below).
     
  12. Dec 29, 2006 #11

    mathwonk

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    2015 Award

    i think math must be the easiest of all fields, as it is the only one i could ever understand anything in.
     
  13. Dec 30, 2006 #12

    Gib Z

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Lol hilarious mathwonk. Personally, I think mathematicians are the most respectable, at least between them and physicists. Physicists are smart, but not as much so as mathematicians. Albert Einstein piggybacked on Riemann with General Relativity, but not as many people know who Riemann is. Mathematicians will be able to do a physicists job for a day and won't be too bad, maybe even better. A physicist will cry at a mathematicians, unless its a string theorist, then they may fair alright. I like to think of physics as applied math, which makes me think math is more pure. Math is the language of physics.

    Another example, Gauss was an excellent mathematician, and did physics as a hobby and still made contributions the average physics student would be dreaming to achieve.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2006
  14. Dec 30, 2006 #13
    Fair point Gib Z. Theoretical physicists are just like applied mathematicians although less rigorous.

    How many physicists who started out as pure mathematicians? A few.
    How many pure mathematicians started out as physicists? I can't think of any.
     
  15. Dec 30, 2006 #14
    I can see how this impression comes about. I think it is hard to learn maths but once you have learnt it, you think how easy it is because it should be self evident truths. Whereas with the other subjects, most deal with empirical objects that are naturally not well defined so the concepts may be easier and learning it for the first time may be quicker and easier than maths but one can never 'understand' those empirical subjects - at least not in the way one could 'understand' mathematics.
     
  16. Dec 30, 2006 #15
    Nothing prevents a physicist from being a very strong mathematician. The opposite is also true.
     
  17. Dec 30, 2006 #16
    To specialize in, say, superstring theory, you have to learn mountains of mathematics, as well as know all the basic physics topics as well as the difficult specialized topics like relativity and quantum field theory. But a mathematician does not need to learn any physics at all. A mathematical physicist is capable of earning two different PhDs, one in math and one in physics. On the other hand, a pure mathematician cannot earn a PhD in physics and a pure physicist cannot earn a PhD in mathematics (unless and take the time to study the other subject from scratch). This is why I admire mathematical physicists like Hawking and Penrose.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2006
  18. Dec 30, 2006 #17
    At my university, you could potentially do a Phd in mathematical physics without having done any undergraduate physics. So when these people (who haven't done any undergrad physics) become mathematical physicists in the maths department , I am not sure they can study a second Phd in the physics department straight away?
     
  19. Dec 31, 2006 #18

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I'm not sure you'll find that is true. At least no more true than the next quote:


    is true. Not least because your favoured area of string theory is very likely to be studied by a pure mathematician. In fact I know very few applied people, or those with a physical background who do string theory, and many pure mathematicians.

    I would also like to point out that plenty of pure mathematicians have a more than average working knowledge of relativity and quantum mechanics - they are after all undergraduate course. I even know some people who did these subjects for personal interest during Part III and are very pure mathematicians. Just as there are plenty of applied people who have a working knowledge of representation theory, say. The pure mathematics of string theory (that wouldn't be assumed from, say, relativity) and are essectial to the beginner can be summed up as:

    essential: Riemann surfaces
    useful: category theory, algebraic topology/geometry

    all but category theory can be, and is, learnt to reasonable level as an undergraduate course. Category theory might be taught, but is often overlooked. To be honest, outside of Baez's n-categorical viewpoint, I'm not sure how useful this really is. The student may end up knowing some highly specialized stuff (in some sense) like chern classes, and poincare duality, or McKay correspondence but it is by no means assured. At the last conference I attended dealing with such matters I don't think I saw a PhD student there, and only a handful of people on post-docs like me. And, no, I'm not a mathematical physicist.

    I think it very misleading to imply that a recently qualified Maths Phys PhD is somehow a demigod of both subjects, and knows enough to do research in either. They don't. They certainly ought to know enough to do research in Maths Phys, but that is the only thing nearing a certainty you can say. You start learning the real stuff after the PhD, apparently. If I were you, I'd check out some PhD theses from maths phys students before saying what it is they have to know, and what it is they do at this stage.


    They are certainly admirable names. But an average mathematical physicist is no more or less able than an average mathematician/physicist. They just happen to work at a very fluid boundary.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2006
  20. Dec 31, 2006 #19

    mathwonk

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    2015 Award

    i think it depends who you ask. i.e. in some circles mathematicians are regarded as hopeless knuckle draggers, and physicists the height of sophisticted intellectuals.

    e.g this position is often heard forwarded in meetings of the flat earth society, or of the kansas school board.
     
  21. Jan 1, 2007 #20

    Gib Z

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Thats exactly what I used to believe, only because I was a physicist :D matt grime may remember me from scienceforums.net, where I spent the majority of my time posting in the physics sections, and I thought i was good :p Then in my studies I realized to continue further in my physics I need a better understand of Calculus, which is when I started to become more interested in pure mathematics. Never Turned back :D I still don't know much in either field though, from what I know about the way American Studies are catergorized, im up to Calc 3, not very good.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: General respect level: physics or math?
  1. Books on General Math (Replies: 2)

Loading...